since it really doesn't belong in waso discussion, i think it would be fair to start a separate thread here.

also, please keep this civilized. if you think that someone is being an idiot, just post a constructive counter-argument. we'll make that conclusion ourselves, without your snide remarks.

here is how the discussion started.
you aren't seriously going to call worms a tbs? i know a lot of people do, but you should know better. worms has no strategy in it whatsoever. it has tactics, and i hope you can at least tell the difference between the two.
Strategy is "The science and art of military command as applied to the overall planning and conduct of warfare" (Wiktionary). Yes, it does also include tactics, but it's primarily classed as a strategy game.
And as it is distinctly turn-based, that makes it a Turn-Based Strategy game.
That, and there isn't a commonly-used "Turn Based Tactics" genre yet.
that is a good definition of strategy. i'm going to accept it as the norm to which a tbs must adhere. being a definition you picked, i don't think you will argue against it.

lets use the definition of tactics from the same source, shall we?
1. (military) plural The military science that deals with achieving the objectives set by strategy.
2. (military) plural Manoeuvres used against an enemy.
3. (military) plural The employment and ordered arrangement of forces in relation to each other.
some more very nice definitions. i should use wiktionary more often.

worms employs tactics under definition of 2, and 3. also, it should be clear that if it does, indeed, employ strategy, it employs tactics under definition 1. so your point "also includes tactics" is a bit redundant. if there is strategy, there is tactics.

question is, can you have tactics without strategy, and is worms the example of such scenario.

lets look at how tactics is part of the strategy. going to definition 1. of tactics, "achieving the objectives set by strategy". so, if we figure out what objectives we achieve with tactics in worms, we get some idea of what strategy is being used.

so what do you try to achieve by manipulating worms in a round? is your victory going to capture land? is it going to provide you with something for your next battle? do you fight here just to create a distraction, and you don't care if you win or lose? no. you always fight to win this particular round. that is all there is to the worms.

you don't sit down and plan out future battles, looking for places to fight where you'll have terrain advantage. you don't think about using a battle to undermine the enemy supply lines. there is no "overall planning and conduct" to the warfare. there are a bunch of individual battles, and win or loss in one has nothing to do with all the others.

so where do you get the strategy from?

finally, even with tactics, its only an element of the game play. between a best tactic who never played worms, and a rugged bng-er, who never used tactics to play worms, who would win a conventional match? a bng-er, of course. why? because worms is first and foremost an artillery game. a person who is good at aiming projectile weapons has the primary advantage. tactics help, but they don't make this game. so even calling it turn-based tactics (and there were plenty of these back in the day. they just aren't popular lately) would be hasty.

worms is a turn-based artillery. that is its genre. to specify within the genre, it is a turn-based artillery with elements of tactics. worms is that, and nothing else.

since it really doesn't belong in waso discussion, i think it would be fair to start a separate thread here.

also, please keep this civilized. if you think that someone is being an idiot, just post a constructive counter-argument. we'll make that conclusion ourselves, without your snide remarks.

here is how the discussion started.


that is a good definition of strategy. i'm going to accept it as the norm to which a tbs must adhere. being a definition you picked, i don't think you will argue against it.

lets use the definition of tactics from the same source, shall we?

some more very nice definitions. i should use wiktionary more often.

worms employs tactics under definition of 2, and 3. also, it should be clear that if it does, indeed, employ strategy, it employs tactics under definition 1. so your point "also includes tactics" is a bit redundant. if there is strategy, there is tactics.

question is, can you have tactics without strategy, and is worms the example of such scenario.

lets look at how tactics is part of the strategy. going to definition 1. of tactics, "achieving the objectives set by strategy". so, if we figure out what objectives we achieve with tactics in worms, we get some idea of what strategy is being used.

so what do you try to achieve by manipulating worms in a round? is your victory going to capture land? is it going to provide you with something for your next battle? do you fight here just to create a distraction, and you don't care if you win or lose? no. you always fight to win this particular round. that is all there is to the worms.

you don't sit down and plan out future battles, looking for places to fight where you'll have terrain advantage. you don't think about using a battle to undermine the enemy supply lines. there is no "overall planning and conduct" to the warfare. there are a bunch of individual battles, and win or loss in one has nothing to do with all the others.

so where do you get the strategy from?

finally, even with tactics, its only an element of the game play. between a best tactic who never played worms, and a rugged bng-er, who never used tactics to play worms, who would win a conventional match? a bng-er, of course. why? because worms is first and foremost an artillery game. a person who is good at aiming projectile weapons has the primary advantage. tactics help, but they don't make this game. so even calling it turn-based tactics (and there were plenty of these back in the day. they just aren't popular lately) would be hasty.

worms is a turn-based artillery. that is its genre. to specify within the genre, it is a turn-based artillery with elements of tactics. worms is that, and nothing else.

Why did you continue this?

It went downhill in the other thread, and it will go downhill in this one.

I'll try give it a good start than.

One of my favorite strategies I like to use in normal type games (especially in elite), is what I call the "wolf pack".

Often in elite games people will place their worms all around the map in places they feel are the safest, or that allow them to perform some sort of planned attack; such as lobbing grenades at the enemy from a safe hideout or releasing a skunk under the enemy.

With wolf pack you place all your worms at the same location, while keeping enough distance so that they do not get piled. All the worms must be within 20 seconds of each other for it to be most effective. Since the enemy's worms are most likely going to be split up from each other; he will either send 1 worm at a time to take on your 4 worms, or he may try to attack you from a range which will probably have little effect unless you leave yourself open to it.

Wolf pack works best if you do not waste your ropes, chutes, bungees, etc. early in the game because your enemy is likely to be more cautious and go into hiding when he is down to his last 1 or 2 worms. Pick off any worms that enter the wolf den and always hunt as a group.

Why did you continue this?

It went downhill in the other thread, and it will go downhill in this one.

i would like to think that hostility already present in the other thread contributed to it going downhill. hopefully, people will be able to keep it civilized here.

i also belive that it is a topic worth discussing. deciding what genre worms belongs to plays a big part on figuring out what people who play the game want from it. if we decide that worms is a tbs, it might benefit from expanding the strategy. if it is not and never was, then adding strategy elements now would be silly.

and i'd like to ask you a favor. if you are going to reply to only part of what you are quoting, can you please edit out the irrelevant parts? if you only wanted to say that this thread is pointless, you needed to quote nothing more than the first two or three sentenses, if even that. it isn't as if anyone will mistake who you were replying to. thank you.

Edit: Etho, please read more than the thread title before replying to it. In the OP, you would find a detailed explanation for why what you are talking about is tactics, not strategy, and may even find that your post has no bearing on the topic.

and i'd like to ask you a favor. if you are going to reply to only part of what you are quoting, can you please edit out the irrelevant parts? if you only wanted to say that this thread is pointless, you needed to quote nothing more than the first two or three sentenses, if even that. it isn't as if anyone will mistake who you were replying to. thank you.

I didn't do it before because my mouse was messed up. Its fixed now, though.

Also, i didn't say it was pointless. All i'm trying to say is that whats done has been done, and that it ended up in a flame war. Not saying this is going to end into a flame war though.

And yes, it is a topic worth discussing, all i'm saying is that there is quite a high chance of there been a flame war.

And it is a turn based strategy, and will always be a turn based strategy.

The problem with calling it an artillery game is that it's only part-artillery. Although the main weapons in the game, the bazooka and grenade, are artillery-style, very few of the other weapons are.

I'll try give it a good start than.

One of my favorite strategies I like to use in normal type games (especially in elite), is what I call the "wolf pack".

Often in elite games people will place their worms all around the map in places they feel are the safest, or that allow them to perform some sort of planned attack; such as lobbing grenades at the enemy from a safe hideout or releasing a skunk under the enemy.

With wolf pack you place all your worms at the same location, while keeping enough distance so that they do not get piled. All the worms must be within 20 seconds of each other for it to be most effective. Since the enemy's worms are most likely going to be split up from each other; he will either send 1 worm at a time to take on your 4 worms, or he may try to attack you from a range which will probably have little effect unless you leave yourself open to it.

Wolf pack works best if you do not waste your ropes, chutes, bungees, etc. early in the game because your enemy is likely to be more cautious and go into hiding when he is down to his last 1 or 2 worms. Pick off any worms that enter the wolf den and always hunt as a group.
This post is a result of only reading the title of a thread, and not the posts.

The problem with calling it an artillery game is that it's only part-artillery. Although the main weapons in the game, the bazooka and grenade, are artillery-style, very few of the other weapons are.
almost all of the primary weapons, but very few of the "super weapons" are projectiles. this is actually typical for the genre.

besides, a game doesn't have to belong to its genre 100%. it just needs to be mostly that, and worms is mostly artillery. it has some tactical aspects, elements of platforming*, and hints and dashes of other things. but it lacks strategy all together, which is why i can't see why people call it a tbs.

* there is actually quite a bit of platforming in worms. if you were to call it a turn-based platformer instead of turn-based artillery, i wouldn't complain.

11 out of 47 weapons in WA and WWP arc. And if you include utilities, that's out of 65 instead. That's not a lot.
And don't say you're just counting primary weapons, because then there's only 5 arcing projectiles.

And don't say you're just counting primary weapons, because then there's only 5 arcing projectiles.
how many are you counting as non-arching primaries, then?

also, if you are going to be getting technical, you should include straight-line and drop weapons as well. drop weapons are projectiles as easily seen when dropped from the rope. straight-line weapons are modeled after projectiles. id est bullets.

from the 'standard' set of weapons you start out with, other than utilities, i can only think of melee weapons and sheep that aren't projectiles of some sort.

edit: forgot strikes and kamikaze. still, a minority.

also, if you are going to be getting technical, you should include straight-line and drop weapons as well. drop weapons are projectiles as easily seen when dropped from the rope. straight-line weapons are modeled after projectiles. id est bullets.

from the 'standard' set of weapons you start out with, other than utilities, i can only think of melee weapons and sheep that aren't projectiles of some sort.

edit: forgot strikes and kamikaze. still, a minority.
Neither weapons dropped from the rope nor straight-firing weapons are artillery. It's by definition.

Also, Wikipedia has something to say about this:
Artillery games are a type of strategy game,
Heh, fancy that.

Neither weapons dropped from the rope nor straight-firing weapons are artillery. It's by definition.
which definitions.

edit: by the way, i already said that if you are comfortable with a different genre, like a turn-based platformer, i'd be happy to give you that. but if you wish to call it strategy, you need to prove that there is strategy in the game. so far, you haven't made a single argument on that.

Also, Wikipedia has something to say about this:
Artillery games are a type of strategy game,
Heh, fancy that.
and, of course, Wikipedia is always right. fact: wikipedia is written by general public, and i am already aware that general public seems to be very confused about the subject.

lets look at the simplest artillery games where all you have is a single projectile type and two immobile player avatars. gorilla (http://free-game-downloads.mosw.com/abandonware/pc/arcade_action/games_g/gorilla.html) would be a good example of such game. is it an artillery game? certainly. does it have any strategy or tactic in it? no, it clearly does not.

by the way, wikipedia article on strategy games does seem to recognize turn-based tactics as separate from turn-based strategy. at least they got that part right.

which definitions.
The definition of the genre! What you're defining it as means that any game with a gun is an Artillery game.

edit: by the way, i already said that if you are comfortable with a different genre, like a turn-based platformer, i'd be happy to give you that. but if you wish to call it strategy, you need to prove that there is strategy in the game. so far, you haven't made a single argument on that.
Okay: there's a lot of strategy required in the game.
I don't know about you, but if you ask me, saying that there's no strategy in a Worms game is pretty suicidal.

fact: wikipedia is written by general public,
Wait, I thought we were trying to define it for the general public anyway? I mean, there's no point in deciding a genre that only us two will use, is there?

Interesting sidenote: As Bonz informed me the other day, the ReadMe that comes with the demo of the very first Worms game distinctly describe it as a "strategy" game.

Okay: there's a lot of strategy required in the game.
I don't know about you, but if you ask me, saying that there's no strategy in a Worms game is pretty suicidal.
tactics, not strategy. read the first post. if you can use the definitions you yourself provided to find strategy in worms, i will agree that worms employs strategy, and then, it would be at least as fair to call it tbs as a tb artillery.

at this point, i can clearly demonstrate artillery element. i can also see a fairly strong tactics element. but i see no signs of strategy.

turn-based action/platformer/shooter/artillery/tactics are all fair. i don't want to argue which dominates in the game and defines genre. strategy is the only one i'm concerned with at the moment.

Yes, but there are so few "artillery" games so as not to bother. There's Scorched Earth, Gorillas, Worms, and... er... well, that's it. Three games does not a genre make, my friend.

It's a turn-based strategy. Strategy is the employment of tactics. Suck it up.

It's a turn-based strategy. Strategy is the employment of tactics. Suck it up.
no. tactics don't define strategy, it is the other way around. tactics are means of achieving goals set by strategy, if there is strategy. otherwise, it is just means of achieving whatever goal is set. the goal of worms is already set. you have no choice. ergo, zero strategy.
Yes, but there are so few "artillery" games so as not to bother. There's Scorched Earth, Gorillas, Worms, and... er... well, that's it. Three games does not a genre make, my friend.
castles, pocket tanks, hogs of war, and gunbound just off the top of my head. there are plenty more.

The strategy involved is in achieving that goal, you slackjawed junkslut.

The strategy involved is in achieving that goal, you slackjawed junkslut.
also, please keep this civilized. if you think that someone is being an idiot, just post a constructive counter-argument. we'll make that conclusion ourselves, without your snide remarks.

not to mention that you, once again, overlook the definitions of strategy and tactics. tactics are used to achieve that goal. strategy is not involved on any level.

Sorry, I thought this thread was about its topic. I guess it's just a semantics argument. In my dictionary...

"strategy":
1: the science or art of war; the planning and directing of military movements and operations.
2: the skillful planning management of anything.

"tactics":
1: the art or science of disposing naval, military, or air forces in action.
2: the operations themselves.
3: procedures to gain advantage or success; methods.

Both these definitions apply to Worms, not 1 or the other 1, but both. Strategy is the planning while tactics is the doing of the actions.

"the skillful planning management of anything" may result in "procedures to gain advantage or success". You do not need to have strategy in order to have tactics and you do not need to have tactics in order to have strategy. However, the use of tactics will not aid in strategy, while the use of strategy may aid in the use of tactics.

care to source your definitions?

one thing that was entirely correct in Plasma's initial comment is that strategy is relevant to 'overall planning and conduct of warfare'. it is the where, when, and why of the individual battles. tactics is the use of forces you are given to achieve the goals set by that strategy.

Strategy is the planning while tactics is the doing of the actions.
ok, even from this angle, strategy of worms must come before the actual battle. the 'planning' stage. but planning what, exactly? you can't chose your battles. you can't gain advantage by sacrificing here and there. so what exactly do you get to plan?

edit: and you are still contradicting yourself. you plan so that you can later act out the plan, right? so strategy still defines tactics. otherwise, the two words become meaningless.

I think the crux of the issue stems from that fact that there is no such genre as "turn-based tactics". It's "Turn-based Strategy". It's an established genre, there are already tons of entries ranging from games like Civilization to Worms to North and South to Final Fantasy Tactics.

The simplest way I can explain why worms is "turn-based strategy" and not "turn-based tactics", is the following.

"turn-based tactics" implies it's a game where you do not need to give much thought about how you are going to fight. You are more or less just pressing buttons to kill your opponent with little thought going into it. This term would be an insult to the Worms genre.

"turn-based strategy" implies you think up plans of attack and then carry these out. This is what Worms is, and is why Team17 classify it as such.

you don't sit down and plan out future battles, looking for places to fight where you'll have terrain advantage.

Yes you do.

you don't think about using a battle to undermine the enemy supply lines.

Yes you do.

there is no "overall planning and conduct" to the warfare.

Yes there is.

there are a bunch of individual battles, and win or loss in one has nothing to do with all the others.

It does have something to do with future battles when stockpiling is enabled.

Just because you see Worms as a single battle doesn't mean that battle can't be* broken up into smaller battles for offensive and defensive positions, turn advantage, crates and so on, depending largely on your tactical preferences as a player, the weapons at your and your opponent's disposal and the current position on the chessboard. And besides, most strategy games serve individual challenges as well, not taking the magnitude of your success into account once you've completed a mission, as long as you've actually completed it. Yes, the objectives often vary from one mission to another in modern games, but I don't see that as a defining requirement when creating a strategic game.

* It in fact is when two experienced players stand against each other in Intermediate, Elite, Pro, Team17 and other default schemes.

so where do you get the strategy from?

In default schemes, the strategy comes in the form of having a look at the battlefield [the map] from a little further away and coming up with ideas on what to do on your next turn(s) during your opponent's move, the hotseat time and even during your own turns if the scheme allows it and you've failed to get the thinking done sooner.

Not only will denying strategy in Worms get you funny looks from those seriously spectacular at default schemes, it's also only mildly interesting from the linguistic perspective, simply because the lines between [rather poorly defined in the first place] genres are known to have blurred a long time ago. There are real-time strategy games and there are turn-based strategy games. Turn-based strategy games split roughly into RPG/fantasy and warfare. Warfare turn-based strategy games include, among others, the grid [think hexagons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hex_map)] and artillery subgenres. That's sort of where Worms fits best, I guess, but isn't that a reason for calling it a strategy game rather than against it? And it's very obviously not just an artillery game; there are as many cavern as there are island map templates in the game's editor.

next turn is tactics. strategy is thinking whether you should engage enemy or let them win so that you'd have more supplies for the next round. the only thing you mentioned that qualifies is stockpiling, which is an option that very few people ever use.

there are ways to play worms as a strategy. there are ways to turn any game into a strategy. right now, a bunch of people are putting together a strategy game where battles are resolved in gta iv multilayer. that doesn't make gta a strategy game.
there is no such genre as "turn-based tactics".
jagged alliance, panzer general, x-com, advance wars. should i keep going? granted, some of these have elements of strategy. some more than others. x-com and jagged alliance, for example, require a good deal of resource management. that's why i'm not going to argue with someone who wishes to call them tbs. fans of these series tend to refer to them as tactical games, however, since most of the gameplay happens in tactical mode.

panzer general, on the other hand, is a pure ttb (tactical turn-based). you are given a number of tanks that start out from certain position, and you must win a battle against the enemy tanks. battles are meant to represent actual wwii battles, so all of the strategy has been decided for you by the generals of that time.

it seems that panzer tactics on ds is similar to that. if you never played a pure ttb, you can give that one a try. though, not having a ds, i never played it, so i can't guarantee that it is a good ttb.

most games that are primarily ttb have at least some strategy to them. that's why a lot of people simply mash them with tbs, despite it being different people who play the two genres. games that are pure ttb are rare, but they do exist. games that have elements of tactics but not strategy are very common, but few are turn-based. in fact, so many turn-based games are tbs that it isn't so much surprising that people think of all turn-based games as tbs. that is, however, wrong.

I like how you went from "the universe doesn't exist" to "strategy games don't exist". Manageable chunks and all that, eh?

I like how you went from "the universe doesn't exist" to "strategy games don't exist". Manageable chunks and all that, eh?
i never said that universe doesn't exist. only that it doesn't have to. and you can't prove it does. any proof of universe's existence requires some axiom, which i'll argue doesn't have to be true. and since you can't prove axioms...

but i digress. strategy games do exist. they are by far the majority of turn-based games. but not every tactical game is a strategy, and worms is just one of the examples of that.

You have no idea how crazy you are sounding. Look through a few dictionaries at the word "strategy" because you do not seem to understand it. You have some specific definition of it stuck in your head which is making you talk like a mad man. Worms is a strategy game. There is no point debating it.

if you have a definition that directly contradicts the one being used in the discussion, propose a different definition, cite the source, and provide an argument for why it is a better definition than the one that is being used.

edit: otherwise, i can just say that its you that doesn't understand the word. and where does that get us? one of us is wrong. lets figure out who, rather than point fingers.

Well, the definition you used is: "The science and art of military command as applied to the overall planning and conduct of warfare". How does that in any way relate to what you are saying? The OVERALL PLANNING and CONDUCT of warfare. That doesn't mean, plan whether to let them win or not, it means plan where to go next, what to do, how to secure crates etc etc. YOU should be the one citing a definiton.

look at the definition of tactics from the same source. the only way they can work together without contradictions is if the overall planning refers to setting of the goals to be achieved by tactics. does decision of picking up the crate change the goal of the battle? no. it is means of achieving that goal, namely destroy enemy worms, and thus, it must be tactics.

you may wish to break it down into smaller pieces. after all, in any strategy there is an overall fixed goal to "win". then why don't we break up a single round in such a way? we call the goal to win the round a goal of strategy, and then things like going after certain worms or picking up crates is something set by strategy. but that's where you run into consistency problems. definitions 2 and 3 of tactics clearly indicate that any movement of your troops and attacks against enemy worms are tactics. the goal of these attacks is to eliminate enemy worms, which is the goal of the round. making winning of the round a goal achieved by tactics. and that is a goal set by strategy, as per definition 1. therefore, strategy, if there is any, should set the goal of winning the round.

however, goal of the round is always the same. there are no higher goals to achieve. that leaves no room for strategy. the best you can do is say that the strategy sets goal of winning the round, because strategic goal is winning the round. that's a null strategy.

therefore, strategy is not present in worms as defined by definitions put down in the first post. therefore, unless you can provide better definitions and actually prove that they are better, you have no case.

now, you have to options. either find a problem with above argument or find better definitions.

I gave better definitions, I clearly explained them, and yet you still don't get it. I told you to look up the definition in other dictionaries. You didn't do it. Arguing with yakuza is a lot more fun than arguing with you because at least he gets the points.

The world isn't wrong, you are. There is strategy in Worms.

Or, lets not debate this at all.

Worms is a TURN BASED STRATEGY.

Its what its been for years, and thats what it will always be.

To be honest all this thread seems to be is quakerworm's attempt to have an argument. If I'm being completely honest what does it matter what genre Worms fits in? If it's decided that it is a turn-based tactics game or a turn based strategy game then what difference will that make to anyone?

Will winning this argument actually mean anything to anyone other than that nice warm feeling of having got one over on a bunch of people who you are never going to actually meet in real life on a forum?

In my opinion, which is only my opinion, neither more or less valid because I work at Team 17 as I have never actually worked on a Worms game, Worms is a Turn based Strategy game. Feel free to argue about it, but try not to let things devolve into a flame war.

Quakerworm, please download the W1 demo (http://www.dream17.co.uk/filage/demos/worms.zip) and have a look at the readme.
Worms Introduction...
---------------------

Worms is a strategy game with a difference... it appeals to the
dark side of human nature. Basically you control your four worms
and are at war with up to 3 other teams. You must try and use the
weapons at your disposal in the best possible way - or at least to
the most devastating effect.

Lots of people will emerge with countless different strategies, but
the basic strategy is that you must protect your worms whilst
causing as much pain to the other team(s) as possible.
Team17 (where the Worm God Andy D. worked) say so, so it's the truth.
'Nuff said.
Stop the discussion now, please.

I gave better definitions, I clearly explained them, and yet you still don't get it. I told you to look up the definition in other dictionaries. You didn't do it. Arguing with yakuza is a lot more fun than arguing with you because at least he gets the points.

The world isn't wrong, you are. There is strategy in Worms.
1. you did not explain why these definitions are better.
2. you did not source your definitions.
3. 'go read' is not an argument.

in fact, there is no argument at all in that post. it is just stating of your opinions. we might as well just get down to the level "is not, is too".
Team17 say so, so it's the truth.
and team17 is credible since when? i'm still waiting for them to release that map editor for w3d. not to mention that they can call it anything they want if they want to market it that way. just because somebody decided that tbs will sell better than 'turn-based artillery game with elements of platformer, shooter, and tactics' isn't making it such.

when trying to prove a point, you construct your argument based on empirical evidence, logic, or appeal to authority. in the case of appealing to authority, you must make sure that your source is credible and unbiased. you failed both of these checks. furthermore, when using it against an argument from logic, you must first point out weaknesses in logic, which you have not done.

so again, to challenge my argument somebody has to either a) find a flaw in logic or b) find different definitions and provide an argument for why they are better. (this one can be an appeal to authority. wiktionary isn't all that credible, but it beats nothing.)

that's the form of a proper counter-argument. anyone actually cares to construct one?

anyone actually cares to construct one?
Does it matter? :rolleyes:
I'm not going to love Worms any less just because someone has stuffed it into the wrong genre drawer.

Have you considered that most of the time genres are used to roughly describe a game.
A lot of games don't fit into a single specific genre and it would just be awkward to define a genre for each game.
Heck, a lot of games would have their own genres then. In what department would gaming magzines and stores put them then? :p

And yes, if Team17 would have decided to define their game as 'turn-based artillery game with elements of platformer, shooter, and tactics' and printed that on the box, it would probably have sold much worse and not have become the classic it is now.
(BTW, "Worms-type" game has become a genre on it's own anyway.)

Quakerworm, Worms is a strategy game. Your on your own here. Your the only one, currently, in this thread, that thinks Worms has no strategy. It does, it has a lot of strategy.

Please read This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_based_strategy).

Also, you should look up the word strategy in the dictionary.

This arguement is just pointless. Even wikipedia name the game as a Turn based strategy.

I'd say Worms has more in common with Gunbound than with Age of Empires. At least, in general.

I also think that Age of Empires has had 10 times more influence on the Strategy games genre than Worms. Making Age of Empries more of a Strategy game model.

I also believe Worms and it's clones to be a genre of their own.

Having said this, I have no problems with people calling it whatever if they have valid reasons, the only reason I got into this argument in the last thread is because quakerworm got called a retard for having the balls to say he thought Worms wasn't a turn based strategy but more of a turn based artillery games (like many websites label it, including famous ones like xfire).

This arguement is just pointless. Even wikipedia name the game as a Turn based strategy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worms_Armageddon

I was going to go edit that page to prove a point, but I didn't need to, the article already calls it an artillery game slash turn based strategy. Implying both or either are correct terms, at least, correct for wikipedia standards, which mean nothing, but since you seem to think it serves as a point, have it your way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worms_Armageddon

I was going to go edit that page to prove a point, but I didn't need to, the article already calls it an artillery game slash turn based strategy. Implying both or either are correct terms, at least, correct for wikipedia standards, which mean nothing, but since you seem to think it serves as a point, have it your way.

Artillery is the use of guns, though.

Also, an artillery game is a form of a turn based strategy, btw. So basically, an artillery game is a turn based strategy.

Artillery is the use of guns, though.

Also, an artillery game is a form of a turn based strategy, btw. So basically, an artillery game is a turn based strategy.

I don't know why you're allowed to post in this forum.
What kind of stupid point are you trying to make? You're basically calling Gunbound a turn based Strategy game, or Cannon, for the Spectrum, which featured two tanks infront of each other.
There's also Artillery games in real time, which makes your point even more silly. In your line, though.

I don't know why you're allowed to post in this forum.

Don't be tempted.

Also, not only did i say that an Artillery game was basically a strategy game,(my bad for saying turn based strategy in my other post) but Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery_game) also did.;)

Ah yes, buit that's Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

First lines of the Wikipedia entry for Strategy:
A strategy is a long term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal, most often "winning". Strategy is differentiated from tactics or immediate actions with resources at hand by its nature of being extensively premeditated, and often practically rehearsed.
I think that says enough.

It amuses me how again quakerworm pretends to be open for discussion, something this forum could definitely use more of, while in fact his opinion has been set in stone since the beginning and will not change. Ever. Out of principle or something. Only reason I'm replying is that I find it hard to resist the challenge, impossible as it may be. But perhaps this was the intention of the thread in the first place... *Plays along for now.*

The flaw in your undeniable logic, sir, is that it relies on the assumption that computer game genres are demarcated by dictionary definitions. They're not, making everything you've posted so far silly from the standpoint of the human beings who created the game, those who marketed it, the numerous industry professionals who reviewed it and classify it as a unique combination within the strategy game genre in their mind [which happens to include everyone writing for a magazine I consider the most reliable source on computer games on planet Earth], and lastly, from the standpoint of the game's dedicated players with tonnes of experience in, you know, playing the game. Against other such individuals, not just the relatively simple AI that has no way of countering an artillery approach coupled with hiding your worms in a way that shamelessly exploits its weaknesses.

Anyway, if your objective is to revolutionise the nomenclature in the games industry, have it adhere to OED definitions, my message to you is have fun. It's not exactly a worthy cause in my book, but it could turn out to be a pretty good exercise in pedantry. And futility. Keep us posted.

Don't be tempted.

Also, not only did i say that an Artillery game was basically a strategy game,(my bad for saying turn based strategy in my other post) but Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery_game) also did.;)

I suggest you actually read the articles you quote, not to look like a fool, pay attention to words like "usually".

Anyway quaker, for the last time, your approved definition:

[The definition of strategy]The science and art of military command as applied to the overall planning and conduct of warfare

This does not mean to decide the purpose of the battle! It means the planning of the battle itself!

I suggest you actually read the articles you quote, not to look like a fool, pay attention to words like "usually".

Actually, i've read it, i'm talking about the bit where it says: An artillery game is known as a type of strategy game, or a shooting game.

This thread has been plunged downhill by two separate petty arguments, so... as predicted...


*Thread closed*


Edit:

Run has requested I add to this thread that he "think[s this is] the worst thread"